Trump threatens to withhold endorsement for Republicans who oppose his rescissions package

[axiomata]

Voting for the lessor of two evils is more of a consent to be governed by they greater of the two evils should they fairly win the electoral college than non-voting.

 

[TheTexan]

Voting for the lessor of two evils is more of a consent to be governed by they greater of the two evils should they fairly win the electoral college than non-voting.

Whether it's consent or not, it certainly signals consent

 

[Swordsmyth]

Given what is denoted by the concepts of consent, robbery, and rape, one cannot consent to being robbed or raped.

Any claim that either voting or not voting can somehow make robbery or rape consensual is a bizarre and self-contradictory non sequitur.

Voting and not voting are expressions of preferences, not grantings of consent.

If I express a preference for being punched in the gut over being shot in the head, I have not thereby granted consent to be punched in the gut.

Likewise, if I decline to express a preference for being kicked in my left nut over being kicked in my right nut (or vice versa), I have not thereby granted consent to be kicked in the nuts.

Crimes are what the person in office may or may not commit, not voting does not consent to crimes, but it does consent to the potential criminal being in the office that gives them the opportunity to commit crimes.

 

[PAF]

Crimes are what the person in office may or may not commit, not voting does not consent to crimes, but it does consent to the potential criminal being in the office that gives them the opportunity to commit crimes.

So now I'm an accomplice? Should I serve jail time if/when a politician commits a crime even though I did not vote? And if so, what happens to the politician? He/she gets reelected [again]?

I'm not going to sit here and tell you how impossibly stupid that is. Because if one can think it, it has the potential of happening. And now I'm wondering if there are places in the world where you are expected demanded to vote [for pre-approved candidates] - or else.

 

[Voluntarist]

Voting for the lessor of two evils is more of a consent to be governed by they greater of the two evils should they fairly win the electoral college than non-voting.

Stage six of the Eight Stages of Voting (Think: Kübler-Ross Model of Grief)

 

[Occam's Banana]

Crimes are what the person in office may or may not commit, not voting does not consent to crimes, but it does consent to the potential criminal being in the office that gives them the opportunity to commit crimes.

Every candidate is a "potential criminal [...] in office", entirely regardless of whether any other person voted for, voted against, or didn't vote at all.

If that potential becomes an actuality, then those who did not vote no more "consented" to the criminality than did those who did (for or against).

That is because neither voting nor not voting is a granting of consent to anything.

Voting - or not voting - is an expression of a preference. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.

 

[TheTexan]

Voting - or not voting - is an expression of a preference. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.

I dunno about that. If you vote for someone with the expressed intention that they commit a certain crime, and then that person goes on to do that crime, that's not much different than aiding/soliciting someone to do a crime on your behalf (which is usually illegal).

 

[nikcers]

I dunno about that. If you vote for someone with the expressed intention that they commit a certain crime, and then that person goes on to do that crime, that's not much different than aiding/soliciting someone to do a crime on your behalf (which is usually illegal).

That's the thing though because in our system a crime isnt a crime when its your government doing it since you are the one letting your government do it and its the people who ultimately decide what a crime is and any crime that isn't enforced is effectively legal.

So the consent doesnt happen when you vote or dont vote the consent is when you allow for it to happen at all.

Our system doesn't leave people powerless to politics and they are supposed to police their own government.

We typically hold politicians accountable by firing them.

If you are too distracted by bread and circuses to do your job then thats your fault.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I dunno about that. If you vote for someone with the expressed intention that they commit a certain crime, and then that person goes on to do that crime, that's not much different than aiding/soliciting someone to do a crime on your behalf (which is usually illegal).

My vote in that case is still just an expression of a preference. That doesn't mean that I don't also consent, in addition to endorsing the preference. But it doesn't necessarily mean that I do, either.

For example, given a choice between being punched in the gut and being shot in the head, a masochist can both prefer and consent to the former, while someone else can prefer the former without also consenting to it.

IOW: Mere voting (or not) cannot alone be construed as consent.

 

[nikcers]

My vote in that case is still just an expression of a preference. That doesn't mean that I don't also consent, in addition to endorsing the preference. But it doesn't mean that I do, either.

For example, given a choice between being punched in the gut and being shot in the head, a masochist can both prefer and consent to the former, while someone else can prefer the former without also consenting to it.

Sometimes i think people hate our country so much they vote for the government that will destroy it the fastest.

 

[TheTexan]

IOW: Mere voting (or not) cannot alone be construed as consent.

Agreed on that count.

It is still a signal of consent though. Voter participation is a commonly used metric of a government's "legitimacy".

 

[TheTexan]

That's the thing though because in our system a crime isnt a crime when its your government doing it since you are the one letting your government do it and its the people who ultimately decide what a crime is and any crime that isn't enforced is effectively legal.

Oh ok I guess that makes sense

 

[TheTexan]

Sometimes i think people hate our country so much they vote for the government that will destroy it the fastest.

I love the country I just hate everybody in it

 

[CaptUSA]

Voter participation is a commonly used metric of a government's "legitimacy".

By whom?

Because what I see is that when there's low turnout, they attribute it to either voting restrictions (we need to loosen the voting requirements!) or satisfaction with the status quo (people just weren't "energized"). I don't think I've EVER seen them say, "yeah, this government isn't legitimate".

 

[TheTexan]

By whom?

Because what I see is that when there's low turnout, they attribute it to either voting restrictions (we need to loosen the voting requirements!) or satisfaction with the status quo (people just weren't "energized"). I don't think I've EVER seen them say, "yeah, this government isn't legitimate".

Sometimes they'll say low voter turnout is indicative of illegitimate government but that designation is reserved only for countries that we don't like.

Otherwise yea, state media will tell you it's because people are satisfied with the status quo. But real people can sometimes see through that bullshit.

All else being equal, there's less opportunities for the government to claim legitimacy and be believed, if you don't vote

 

[PAF]

Sometimes i think people hate our country so much they vote for the government that will destroy it the fastest.

They don't necessarily hate the country. They could actually love the country. It's just that they don't learn from history that socialism/communism/republicanism eventually fails, and/or believes "this time will be different".

Really it doesn't matter what form of government, it's mostly all the same. I just don't want to be affected or go down with the ship because of the choices other people make. Free and independent and self-determination usually [though not always] maximizes ones own potential and affects less people. Socialism/communism/republicanism typically leads to laziness all while growing an empire - of which will fail as a whole.

Well, that's my take, anyway.

 

[PAF]

By whom?

Because what I see is that when there's low turnout, they attribute it to either voting restrictions (we need to loosen the voting requirements!) or satisfaction with the status quo (people just weren't "energized"). I don't think I've EVER seen them say, "yeah, this government isn't legitimate".

Of course "they" won't say/admit that.

TV ads and billboards: "Turn Out The Vote! It's the most important election of our lifetime!"

But you get to keep your shoes on, right?

 

[nikcers]

By whom?

Because what I see is that when there's low turnout, they attribute it to either voting restrictions (we need to loosen the voting requirements!) or satisfaction with the status quo (people just weren't "energized"). I don't think I've EVER seen them say, "yeah, this government isn't legitimate".

Legitimacy is when the government has fair elections and when they represent the will and the best interests of the people.

If the government is fucking our kids then it doesnt matter how many votes they got.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It is still a signalof consent though.

It can be - but it's a signal that produces a lot of false positives (especially at scale).

Suppose the following:

• Smith, Jones, and Davis all agree that Policy A is a Really Good Thing™ and Policy B is a Very Bad Thing®
• Candidate X supports A & B, while Candidate Y opposes A & B
• Smith votes for X because X supports A (which is more important to Smith than issue B)
• Jones votes for Y because Y opposes B (which is more important to Jones than issue A)
• Davis doesn't vote, because X supports B and Y opposes A (issues A & B being equally important to Davis)

Smith, Jones, and Davis merely expressed/endorsed their subjective preferences relative to A & B. Regardless of which candidate wins, defending the position that any of Smith, Jones, and/or Davis somehow "consented" (or even just "signaled" consent) to B is untenable. (And it becomes even more absurd as the possible combinations of candidates and/or policies increases.)

The tendency to reduce these complexities down to grotesque oversimplifications such as "voting is consent" or "not voting is consent" is just one of the reasons I loathe and despise democracy (and its results/consequences).

Voter participation is a commonly used metric of a government's "legitimacy".

True - and that's yet another reason to loathe and despise democracy.

 

[Occam's Banana]

And now I'm wondering if there are places in the world where you are expected demanded to vote [for pre-approved candidates] - or else.

Compulsory Voting in Australia [PDF here]